Table 3 The differences between 3D-modelled phantom and 3D-printed phantom.

From: Modelling and manufacturing of 3D-printed, patient-specific, and anthropomorphic gastric phantoms: a pilot study

Volume (mL)

Surface area (mm2)

MP (mm)

Mean (IQR)

Patient 1

3D-modelled phantom

\(0.87{\times 10}^{3}\)

\(73.2{\times 10}^{3}\)

1.63 (1.25–2.05)

3D-printed phantom

\(0.88\times {10}^{3}\)

\(73.9\times {10}^{3}\)

Patient 2

3D-modelled phantom

\(1.51\times {10}^{3}\)

\(93.9\times {10}^{3}\)

3.78 (3.65–5.25)

3D-printed phantom

\(1.57\times {10}^{3}\)

\(95.5\times {10}^{3}\)

Patient 3

3D-modelled phantom

\(1.68\times {10}^{3}\)

\(102.9\times {10}^{3}\)

4.47 (3.60–5.73)

3D-printed phantom

\(1.69\times {10}^{3}\)

\(103.3\times {10}^{3}\)

  1. IQR interquartile range, 3D-modelled phantom the 3D-models were built using CT image of patients, 3D-printed phantom the 3D-models were built using CT image of 3D-printed phantom, MP distance discrepancy between two stomach morphologies (3D-modelled and 3D-printed phantoms).
Back to article page